Anti Rape Condom

PrezLeefun · 06-07-2008, 10:20 AM

This is wild.

http://www.crime-information.com/ant...-female-condom

TeenageRepublican · 06-07-2008, 10:59 AM

Ouch... and I thought chasity belts sucked...

Wolf Counsel · 06-07-2008, 11:19 AM

So there is much criticism against it, eh? What type of dumbass is concerned for the well-being of violent rapists rather than the protection of innocent women?

A liberal dumbass, of course! let's hear it from the peanut gallery, as well as from the cheerleader section.

DoctorDoom · 06-07-2008, 11:40 AM

If rapists don't want their willies beartrapped ... don't rape.

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.
-- Baretta

jayson · 06-07-2008, 11:58 AM

The only problem I see is that when Mister Rapist pulls his dingy out and sees that it's ripped and torn and bleeding, he may be thrown into an adrenaline fueled rage and actually hurt the woman with more violence to, possibly, the point of murder.

Especially if PCP was involved, say goodbye to the rapee's life.

Kathy30 · 06-07-2008, 12:05 PM

The theory is, when he pulls out, it will remove the condom still attached to him and she will be able to get away.

I'm all for it. I'm sick of the notion that crime must be made safe for the criminals. Whether or not some guy is injured is completely under he control. He has an option of not raping.

Riverboat · 06-07-2008, 12:08 PM

I think explosives should part of the fun.

Elgalad · 06-07-2008, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayson

The only problem I see is that when Mister Rapist pulls his dingy out and sees that it's ripped and torn and bleeding, he may be thrown into an adrenaline fueled rage and actually hurt the woman with more violence to, possibly, the point of murder.

Are you a male, Jayson?

Captain Obvious checking in to point out that the only thing more disabling to a gent than a heart-shot, is injury to the jewels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayson

Especially if PCP was involved, say goodbye to the rapee's life.

This argument fails on so many levels.

IF the rapist feels the injury, he's not going to be thinking about Anything else But the injury and how to make the pain stop.

IF the rapist does Not feel the injury (due to being coked up or dusted, whatever), he's most likely going to keep injuring himself until he passes out from blood loss.

But those are both moot points because;

If the rapist is THAT drugged up, it is much more likely that he won't be able to get it up in the first place!

Lastly, your argument implies that a citizen should Not attempt to defend herself from grievous bodily harm for fear that she might receive grievous bodily harm by doing so.

Do you not see the irony?

-Elgalad

MSGT · 06-07-2008, 12:37 PM

Nobody thinks this will be misused.

DoctorDoom · 06-07-2008, 12:38 PM

When the Rapex is not enough ...

DeclinetoState · 06-07-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Summary

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws

GreatDredScott · 06-11-2008, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfcounsel

So there is much criticism against it, eh? What type of dumbass is concerned for the well-being of violent rapists rather than the protection of innocent women?

A liberal dumbass, of course! let's hear it from the peanut gallery, as well as from the cheerleader section.

Well, I think those decrying it because of the vengeance issue are sissies.

However, this FAQ on the RAPEX site bothers me:

Quote:

What about date rape?

Very good question!! If you are out on a date you can either insert the device before going out, or if during the date you are uncomfortable about your date partner, excuse yourself to the bathroom and insert the device. For the first time there is now incriminating evidence, it will no longer be your word against his!

I don't really see how this proves much of anything except that the man did indeed "enter" the woman. In the cases of date rape where both parties agree that intercourse took place and the guy just didn't stop when she said "no" that's not an issue. It seems that she could still lie about it not being consensual, which would mean juries would have to hear about signs of force, just like they do now. My worry is that juries will see pictures of the man's bloodies penis and let their emotions guide them to an unfortunate decision.

Wolf Counsel · 06-11-2008, 02:49 AM

"Well, I think those decrying it because of the vengeance issue are sissies.

However, this FAQ on the RAPEX site bothers me:" --GreatDredScott

Quote:

What about date rape?

Very good question!! If you are out on a date you can either insert the device before going out, or if during the date you are uncomfortable about your date partner, excuse yourself to the bathroom and insert the device. For the first time there is now incriminating evidence, it will no longer be your word against his!

Any woman who inserts the device to prevent a date rape, or to provide "evidence" of a date rape is going to have to answer the question: Is she a farking psycho in the first place, intent on getting her jollies off by causing harm to innocent men? How about they both get plastered, and she forgets she's wearing one of those things and she coaxes the man to be a man and make her "feel good"?

LivingDeadGirl · 06-11-2008, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MSGT

Nobody thinks this will be misused.

Exactly how would it be misused? Like someone getting back at an ex or someone they don't like? Lorena Bobbit like??

HomeschoolrsRUs · 06-11-2008, 08:36 AM

People shouldn't be having pre-marital sex. Call me old-fashioned -- and I know, I know, EVERYBODY does it now, how can we POSSIBLY expect people to wait until they get married to have sex,

-- but if a man goes sticking his wick where it shouldn't be, I'll have a hard time feeling sorry for him if it gets lit. People treat sex like a recreational activity -- well many's the person who's gotten injured horsing around.